Published opinion, 27 May 2026 · source · PDF · 6 pages
The law does not support petitioner’s argument at all. These types of AI-hallucinated arguments are just as egregious as a citation to non-existent law. See Clerk of Court & Comptroller for 13th Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough Cnty. v.
2d DCA 2025) (sanctioning counsel for filing a brief that, among other things, “misstated court holdings”). Pro se litigants and attorneys are responsible for their AI-generated filings and may be subject to sanctions for filings that contain fictitious authority or “cite actual cases for inaccurate legal propositions.” Hessert v. Hessert , 51 1 This Court has seen this AI-hallucinated argument often.
We denied petitioner’s frivolous certiorari petition and request for emergency treatment in case number 4D2026-0921, explaining that no basis for extraordinary writ relief was shown, and that the AI-generated petition attempted to raise 19 grounds for relief which were not properly before us. 5 We noted that petitioner has previously filed frivolous documents and was cautioned against frivolous filing in 4D2026-0544 for filing a request for emergency treatment that cited a non-existent rule of procedure. He filed the frivolous petitions and emergency request in these cases after the warning.